The deniers club: bowing to Turkey and Sri Lanka

The 'Israel lobby' is second tier compared to the Turks and Sri Lankans, who wield significant sway over Australia's domestic and foreign policy, writes Simon Tatz.

A tweeter joked that if the Israel lobby in Australia was so influential, they would have gotten Bob Carr upgraded to first class. This was in reference to the revelations by Labor's former foreign minister in his tell-all diary that it was demeaning flying business class, and that the Israel lobby had undue influence over the Gillard government.

The fascinating aspect to Bob Carr's self-serving attack on his former prime minister and the so-called Israel lobby is that Carr wilfully ignores that there are other powerful lobbyists influencing government decisions - the Turkish and Sri Lankan governments.

As a staffer in the Labor Party for more than a decade, I've experienced lobbyists of all persuasions. I have sat in meetings with lobbyists representing every manner of vested interest, including this amorphous and apparently all-powerful 'Israel lobby', and it seems to me they are second tier compared to the Turks and Sri Lankans, who wield significant sway over Australia's domestic and foreign policy.

For a century, Turkish governments have been denying the genocide of the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. That the genocide took place is a historically irrefutable fact, yet the Turks have waged a world-wide campaign of intimidation to suppress and deny the massacre of one-and-a-half million Armenians. The Turks have achieved perverse 'successes' by influencing Australian governments because of our attachment to Gallipoli. It is a matter of record that ANZAC troops taken prisoner during the Gallipoli campaign bore witness to the Armenian genocide. To deny the Armenian genocide is, in effect, to accuse Australian and New Zealand survivors of the bloody Gallipoli landing of lying and of fabricating history. The eyewitness evidence of Australian soldiers is held by the Australian War Memorial, who rather oddly cannot find room to display it in their public galleries.

I'm not accusing the Australian War Memorial of deliberately hiding the evidence of Turkish atrocities during World War I, although federal governments are so obsessed with the symbolism associated with Gallipoli, especially as we approach the centenary celebrations, that they will do anything not to upset the Turkish government. Whatever else one may think of NSW MP Fred Nile or Premier Barry O'Farrell, they have spoken out against the threats by Turkey and showed far more courage than their federal counterparts.

When it comes to wielding political influence, the silence of Australian politicians in confronting Turkey is staggering. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, "for the second consecutive year, Turkey was the world's leading jailer of journalists". There is little press freedom in Turkey, especially when it comes to the sensitive issue of the Armenian genocide.

I know from personal experience the lengths some Turkish sympathisers will go to silence their critics. On August 21, 2013, ABC correspondent Michael Brissenden produced a very powerful report (for 7.30 and PM) on how the Turkish government is using the centenary celebrations at Gallipoli to shut down criticism of the Armenian genocide. Following the comments of some courageous NSW politicians, the Turkish Government has threatened to ban any outspoken politicians from attending the commemoration in Gallipoli in 2015.

My father, Professor Colin Tatz, a renowned genocide scholar, appeared as part of Brissenden's report. Following the ABC's broadcast, the Turkish 'lobby' went into overdrive. I understand that they contacted the ABC and questioned the veracity of the story and the qualifications of those interviewed. For the record, Colin Tatz founded the Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and is the author of With Intent To Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide. My family has been subject to online attacks by people denying Turkish atrocities and I received intimidating telephone calls.

Federal members of Parliament have rarely voiced any concern about the Turkish Government threatening to ban anyone critical of them from attending Gallipoli celebrations, nor has the Federal Government followed the lead of NSW and passed a motion officially recognising the Armenian genocide. Treasurer Joe Hockey, who has Armenian heritage, Malcolm Turnbull and Michael Danby have voiced their support for such a motion, as have others, but not the Parliament. As the ABC noted:

Around the world Turkish efforts to prevent any official recognition of genocide have been remarkably successful. Only 21 countries have passed a resolution to that effect. The British government and the United States government have not, although 43 US states have, and neither has the Australian Government.

Heaven forbid that we should upset our Turkish friends as we work together to commemorate our fallen diggers.

The Sri Lankans have exerted influence too. While not taking sides or passing judgement on the Sri Lankan civil war, there is credible evidence of war crimes and massacres. The 'Report of the Advisory panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka Allegations', presented to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, certainly supports the view that an independent investigation of alleged war crimes and human rights violations is warranted.

While some world leaders have supported the UN's call for an investigation of the alleged atrocities, Bob Carr and Julie Bishop don't appear to share this view. For their own political agenda - refusing the asylum claims of Tamils arriving here by boat by saying they are economic refugees - Labor and Liberal have not supported independent investigations of the Sri Lankan civil war.

In my opinion, certain Australian federal ministers have entered the deniers club when it comes to Turkey and Sri Lanka. It is a bewildering that any Australian politician would deny acts of genocide or claims of atrocities to further their own domestic political agendas. To me, this is an example of political influence at work.

The last word belongs to Bob Carr. In a speech to the NSW Parliament in 1997, then Premier Carr said: "The Armenian people are right to insist that this great crime against their people, their culture and the universal rights of humankind must be acknowledged." In February 2013, as minister for foreign affairs, Senator Bob Carr told the Lowy Institute that "as a Government we don't take a stand on this historical dispute".

If Bob Carr wants to honestly discuss how foreign governments influence Australian policy, he should explain whether his denial of the Armenian genocide was the result of the "Turkish lobby".

Simon Tatz was chief of staff to the minister for higher education and regional communications in the Gillard-Rudd government. View his full profile here.

Colmery:

lizzie:

16 Apr 2014 6:16:36pm

Hmmm! its not by any chance the same group of 'dispossesed terrorists' (or, more precisley, psycopathic nutters,) who are also responsible for the murder and displacement of tens of thousands of Christians in the middle east and around the world (Africa, Asia, etc, etc) ?? Blowing up buildings, oppressing women, just to name a few. I wonder how they got to Israel as well! There must be quite a few of them.

Michael Dixon:

RayS:

16 Apr 2014 6:41:05pm

Israel wanted Australia to vote against Palestine receiving observer status in the UN. Such a vote would be considered unfair and would be seen to be repressive by Australians and should be seen as such by Israelis as well, frankly.

To bring pressure behind the scenes on Gillard to have Australia vote no is disgusting. For Israel to so completely deny the human rights of those they have dispossessed and continue to torment is a hideous thing, a cold and calculating thing.

This was not a past atrocity or loathsome act committed by another people, another country. It was Israel putting pressure to have Australia actively support them in their evil act. That makes it different from turning a blind eye on genocide by others for political purposes and therefore warranted different emphasis by Carr.

Carr somewhat redeemed himself in his stand on the Palestine UN vote. He resisted the blind injustice which Gillard was prepared to cow-tow to, at least this once. I am glad he published the background situation.

aGuy:

Wow, you think Israel is powerful. They would not even cover 0.5% of the worlds land mass, is one of the newest countries and yet you blame them for terrorist attacks across the globe.

Strange that you do not blame the terrorists for terrorist acts. There is always choice. Most countries surrounding Israel produce refugees. There has been a choice by people within those countries to abuse their own citizens. Yet that is not worthy of mentioning by you.

Alpo:

16 Apr 2014 9:11:56pm

aGuy,You obviously have never heard of the Mossad. Do you think that they are an extension of the Boy Scouts? Do you think that they are a national security agency full of ethical principles and due respect for the laws of the countries of the world?.... Please, don't make me laugh!

Colmery:

17 Apr 2014 2:31:45am

They just need to show respect for their creator.

Israel was created by the UN and must respect the borders it set. Without progress towards this integrity Israel risks alienating reasonable people across the world. Its endless bluster is offensive to reason.

al:

16 Apr 2014 11:44:55pm

Mr Tatz is correct to point out the attempts by the Turkish and Sri Lankan lobby to exert influence in order to alter the facts. But that does not deflect the fair criticism of the Israel lobby trying to do the same.

Fred:

I am simply astonished how little media attention was given to the recent leak of a video showing Turkey's leaders plotting fake attacks on Turkey that could be used as an excuse to invade Syria.

Is it because Turkey is a member of NATO, and NATO can't ever be shown as the bad guys in our 'free' press?

I'm sure if Iran was busted plotting fake reasons to invade Israel it would dominate the news! Or in today's environment of anti-Russian hysteria, if Russia was busted plotting fake reasons to invade Ukraine, would our media give them a free pass like they did with Turkey?

dubious the third:

16 Apr 2014 11:58:26pm

Australians are so good at pointing the finger at others for the Crime ogf Genocide, yet curiously, refuses to introduce domestic legislation to make it a Crime in Australia.There is a little provision, since 2002, that the Federal Attorney General can institute proceedings, but only so as to get Australia accepted into the ICC.Could it be that when Australians are pointing their finger at Israel, Turkey and/or Sri Lanka, three fingers are pointing back at Australia which continues to oversee the genocide of the Sovereign Original Peoples of these lands?

blax5:

16 Apr 2014 10:34:03am

Turkey controls the Bosporus, i.e. the waters that lead to the Crimea. They can do and say anything they like without consequence as long as they keep the Bosporus open for NATO.

I also read that recently Erdogan blocked Twitter and youtube in Turkey. As both are businesses, you would think that these 2 companies would take Turkey to the investment court in Washington for lost revenue, but I haven't read that (yet?).

I had an Armenian friend whose parents fled to Germany 'in the troubles'.

Kevin V Russell:

Zing:

16 Apr 2014 12:11:00pm

You're overthinking things.

News is designed for domestic consumption, not to convince the populations of your enemies. The people in Russia and Iran will believe what they want to believe and won't let themselves be convinced otherwise.

Besides. It's unlikely that Iran would plot fake reasons to invade Israel. Iran has plenty of reasons for why they'd want to launch an attack. The reasons include genocide, Palestinian liberation, resistance to the West or the establishment of a regional caliphate.

Any of these reasons would be acceptable to large parts of the Iranian population. So why would the Iranian government bother lying to them?

Dove:

16 Apr 2014 6:47:46pm

I think you can discount shia muslims from even dreaming of a caliphate. That's a sunni ideal, and one dreamed of by about the same percentage as that of christians who dream of a world wide kingdom of christ. Too many, but not many.

tman:

16 Apr 2014 9:25:04pm

Recep Tayyip Erdo&#287;an was caught red handed trying to organise a black flag event i.e. transport missiles into Syrian territory and attack their own people, so he could invade Syria. He then blocked Youtube when his terrible plans were leaked on the site.

Sam:

16 Apr 2014 8:15:18am

Politics is a game of thrones. The moral high ground is reserved for the 'winners'. The outcast and down trodden will always remain just that. Politics is said to be politicians serving the public interest. Often enough the public interest becomes the national interest and of course history will often be written to conceal anything that stains that.

Terry:

16 Apr 2014 8:16:57am

Agree entirely.

For Bob Carr, involved in NSW ALP politics to think the "Jewish" lobby is the only one worth mentioning would be amusing of it were not so sad.

NSW ALP has been dominated by a couple of ethnic groups for decades, with branch stacking an accepted and prevalent modus operandi. They wield incredible power, affecting not only NSW but national policies.

This influence for years cowed the police and other branches of government into turning a blind eye to criminal activity and activity that would otherwise have provoked immediate response.

Although not mentioned at the time, the " Cronulla riot" as it was presented to the world by the authorities, was a direct result of this attitude. Anti-social and criminal behaviour by groups of youths "of Middle Eastern appearance" was ignored, despite years of complaints by locals. When an assault on a young man protecting his girlfriend finally proved to much and violence erupted, it was the victims who were blamed.

A huge effort was made by all concerned to avoid mentioning that the social disruption was a direct result of the privileged treatment of a group that had converted its influence on the ALP into an unhealthy impact on social relations.

Yet despite being in the heart of the ALP for this whole period, Mr Carr apparently was unaware. He was only struck by the power of the "Jewish" lobby. He himself, of course, was unaffected by and ignorant of the "Lebanese" lobby, the "Turkish" lobby and the rest.

And it would impossible of course, for Ms Gillard to have actually considered the morality and justice of a decision. To Mr Carr, it was just a matter of the numbers, and not putting the Arab nations offside.

A wonderful way of showing how "independent" we are: to subcontract our foreign policy to a group of countries with a record of racism, misogyny, totalitarian government and wars of aggression. But at least they did that without influence from the "Jewish" lobby.

Gary Lord:

16 Apr 2014 8:21:58am

Fair points on Sri Lanka and Turkey, but what about the US government, who surely have more influence on Canberra than anybody?

For example, Bob Carr as FM was desperate to pretend he knew nothing about the US Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks, and did absolutely nothing to help Australian award-winning journalist Julian Assange. Instead he welcomed a new US Marine base on Australian soil and ignored revelations of US spying via Pine Gap.

We cannot have an informed and sovereign foreign policy while our government keeps pretending to ignore reality.

James Murphy:

17 Apr 2014 5:37:28am

Is this the Julian Assange who, whilst demanding free speech, free press, and open government, went scurrying off to get protection from country known for doing nothing to support any of the above. He's nothing but a cowardly selfish hypocrite.

Having said that, all Australian citizens, even gutless loudmouths deserve consular and legal advice...

Alpo:

16 Apr 2014 8:46:54am

Simon,The Jewish community is perfectly entitled to lobby any Government... and so are the Turkish, Sri Lankan, Chinese, Indian,... etc. communities. It is not illegal to lobby and there is no need to excuse the lobbying. Lobbying a Government simply springs from a pretty natural drive to maximise our self-interest. Everybody is perfectly entitled to "try".... but it is up to the Government to see whether what the lobbyists are offering and asking in return is for the greater benefit of the Whole Country or not. That is the ultimate test to see whether the lobbying is good or bad.

Steve_C:

"...the lobbyists are offering and asking in return is for the greater benefit of the Whole Country or not."

Perhaps that's Why Simon sees the "Jewish Lobby" as "second tier"... although if he did, it'd be either a judgement based on delusion, or calculated obfuscation and deliberate misrepresentation.

Perhaps Simon has not actually had any longer term dealings with members of Sydney's Jewish Community. If he had, he might just realize that, like the Italian, Lebanese and Greek communities - who have also had such long associations with the 'broader' Australian community, that their influence in and over our political system is now so seamless that for many a younger Aussie, it appears that there's negligible to zero "lobbying" being done on their behalf.

Australia's older 'ethnic/religious' communities/organisations are like the proverbial "well worn pair of shoes"... Their influence in terms of lobbying is 'comfortable' because it's been around for so long. The Sri Lankans and Turkey are new kids on the block in comparison. They're the equivalent of new leather shoes that aren't as supple; as natural when worn that the wearer doesn't even notice they're being worn.

Now; how to decide what's in the "National interest" Alpo, when the lobbyists are so ingrained into the system that they aren't just outsiders wining, dining and if they need to bribing their way to what they want out of us... they are in fact even members of the decision makers being lobbied?!!!!

Sure; in a 'Democracy', everyone is entitled to 'lobby'. What is in contention is whether it's 'fair' (let alone in the National interest!) for particular groups/individuals to have more leverage as lobbyists purely based upon their religious affiliations/economic circumstances or political persuasions.

I've seen enough of the Jewish Lobby in my time to agree wholeheartedly with Bob Carr.

The fact there's such a whine going up about it, ought to be enough to convince anyone who's had to deal with a child trying to cover up the truth by chucking a tizzy fit; that the nail has in fact been hit well and truly on the head. The Jewish Lobby is so used to 'operating under the radar' that Bob's bare faced honest exposure has their more paranoid operators fearful of the consequences.

If they just kept cool heads and let ordinary Aussies be like what Simon ought to have been - namely, silent debunkers living in naive denial of reality; there'd be no need for all this hubbub...

Alpo:

16 Apr 2014 10:30:58am

"how to decide what's in the "National interest""... Good question Steve. The first filter is the Government Department that is being lobbied. They will have to decide what is "reasonable", "good", "useful" in the lobbyists' plea and what is unreasonable, bad, costly. Once they have decided, they will act. It's up to the Government to then inform us, or us to simply watch what's going on, journalists to stick their noses everywhere and tell us what they find, etc. After all that, the people should have a picture of the situation and we decide whether we like what we see or not... ultimately, the judgment will be made at the ballot box. The Jewish lobby is pushing for pro-Israel policies? The Greens seem to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians? You are more sympathetic to the Palestinian plea than the Israeli one? .... Vote fro the Greens!... and so forth and so on.

Whitey:

Pearcewreck:

16 Apr 2014 9:52:21am

Alpo,You completely miss the point. Simon is not saying lobbying is bad, he is pointing out Car's hypocracy at only critizing the Isreal lobby's so called influence over Gillard, whilst ignoring the others. To me, this article shows how many people are anti Isreal. Not that I'm pro Isreal (never been there, not Jewish), but we need to have un-biased reporting.

Now, back to you Alpo, I wonder if this article have been critical of say Malcolm Turnbull, or Lord Downer, would you have made your comment. I doubt it.You and all the other one eyed lefties on this site must still be in shock that the ABC would publish anything even remotely crical of your precious ALP.

Alpo:

16 Apr 2014 10:42:42am

Hi Pearcewreck,I will ignore your second paragraph, but your first one does contain some interesting points. On the Israel-Palestinian issue for instance it is known that Carr always wanted to take a more conciliatory, middle of the road approach, which I also support by the way (my defence of the right of the Jewish community to lobby is not necessarily an endorsement of the goals they want to achieve with that lobbying); and so his criticism of the lobbying by the pro-Israel community must be understood in those terms. Carr was pointing at what he believed should be the foreign affairs approach of Australia to this complex Middle East issue: that Australia should give equal weight to the legitimate aspirations of both sides.

Polly Wolly Doodle:

16 Apr 2014 2:30:03pm

Hello Alpo:

Thank you for your graceful response to Pearcewreck. We need the calm and rational response here on The Drum. As you state "Australia should give equal weight to the legitimate aspirations of both sides" Ignore the Pearcewreck insult and talk rationally about the issue. Classy!

Zing:

16 Apr 2014 3:50:35pm

And that's the problem, Alpo.

The anti-Israel lobby consists of moderates. But it also consists of a variety of subgroups including palestinians, muslims, anti-semites, Islamic terrorists, militant groups, conspiracy theorists and people generally opposed to the West.

The majority of these subgroups don't have aspirations which would be considered "legitimate" by a modern and educated society. So these points of view would still be dismissed even if you take a "middle of the road" approach.

Aside from which, foreign affairs is about taking a side. I have a feeling that Carr didn't really want us to take a middle of the road approach. He just wanted us to take an approach that didn't support Israel, but he didn't have the conviction to say why on public television.

Alpo:

16 Apr 2014 6:52:21pm

Zing,the Palestinians are not just a "subgroup" within the anti-Israel lobby. They are the major other player in this long-standing dispute in that region of the Middle East. There won't be lasting peace until Israel is guaranteed security, there won't be lasting peace until the Palestinians create their own independent state comprising the West Bank and Gaza. That's a sine qua non condition for a true resolution of that conflict. If you see an alternative one, please do let me know. The extremists just exploit the never ending situation of tension and frustration.

In my humble view, the Palestinians should offer the creation of a de-militarised Palestinian State (including the dismantling of armed militias, and with only a police force for law and order) in exchange for a treaty of no aggression from Israel, being enforced by a permanent UN presence along the common border.

Zing:

16 Apr 2014 9:22:34pm

Actually, I'd disagree.

The palestinians are one of the least relevant players in the anti-Israel lobby. And to an extent, they're the most minor player in the Israel-Palestine conflict as well. The opinions of Hezbollah have more relevance to affairs.

As for peace, I have a simple suggestion. The anti-Israel lobby has to stop. Period. As long as the palestinians think that some external presence will force Israel to concede, the palestinians will never negotiate in good faith. They'll continue to wait and their bargaining position will continue to shrink.

The only way the palestinians will negotiate a peace agreement is if they're convinced that they will not achieve a better outcome by other means. Ironically, the anti-Israel lobby are the biggest stumbling block to the very peace they supposedly crave.

Whitey:

16 Apr 2014 10:24:22pm

Alpo, I disagreed with ms Gillard over many things, but I thought her stand on the Isreal vote was courageous and conscientious. There are no winners in this debate, only people on both sides whose self interest and fear of the other side have made them take decisions that won't lead to peace.

Dove:

Fred:

16 Apr 2014 9:24:59am

Show me a country strongly critical of the Israeli government that isn't undergoing 'turmoil'. Israel has much more power to harm its foes than does Sri Lanka.

BTW how's that nuclear whistle blower going? How come it's fine for Israel to have weapons of mass destruction? Or for that matter, misuse Australian passports for the purposes of killing an opponent in Dubai? Why are there always double standards with Israel?

The Graveyard Duck:

"Show me a country strongly critical of the Israeli government that isn't undergoing 'turmoil'"

That says more about the countries which despise Israel (e.g. Islamic theocracies, tinpot dictatorsahips, and Communist states) than it does Israel itself.

"How come it's fine for Israel to have weapons of mass destruction? Or for that matter, misuse Australian passports for the purposes of killing an opponent in Dubai?"

Israel is a democracy, which has had to repel three wars of destructiuon brought upon it by its own neighbours. Israel (unlike Iran) also doesn' tmake any threats to "annihilate" any of its neighbours.

As for using Australian passports to help them kill mass murdering terrorists? No problem here. They can use mine any time they want. It would be a pleasure.

Michael Dixon:

17 Apr 2014 12:04:11am

Excellent. I would have lent them several of my own passports if only they'd asked. I think you're a bit light on the number of murderous Arab armies and wars deployed to commit genocide against Israeli citizens, though? I'm excluding the constant small-scale terrorism.

Not such a Golden Oldie:

16 Apr 2014 8:54:08am

Mr Tatz makes some good points.Agreed that we need to be aware of All the lobbies affecting our political parties, governments, press etc., should we include or ignore the Israel lobby or include that lobby with those of Turkey, Sri Lanka, USA, Britain, etc. etc.

GJA:

16 Apr 2014 8:54:19am

For Australia to acknowledge the Armenian genocide we must be prepared to hold Turkey to account, which won't happen without the US, and they won't do anything because they're stuck in their Cold War mentality. Australia hasn't got the political courage to stand up by themselves, especially if it means politicians might be denied the opportunity to rend their garments in public over Gallipoli every year.

For Australia to support a UN investigation of Sri Lankan war crimes it would have to care, and so long as Tamils continue to seek refugee in Australia, they won't. They will instead obstruct any such effort, despite their coveted seat on the UN Security Council and the supposed moral high ground it would otherwise afford.

Australia's position in the world is safe, so long as we are quiet and don't upset anyone.

Terry:

"For Australia to acknowledge the Armenian genocide we must be prepared to hold Turkey to account, which won't happen without the US ... "

Why? As Mr Carr made clear, Australia was quite prepared to go against the US when the question concerned Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel was a special case?

Perhaps your final sentence is a clue.

"Australia's position in the world is safe, so long as we are quiet and don't upset anyone"

It just needs to be modified by adding ".. except the US, Israel and any democracies that put doing right above mollifying the Arab League, the African nations and any other dictatorship or totalitarian government".

GJA:

Terry:

He said that Ms Gillard bowed the Jewish lobby but that he was for more concerned with the Arab nations being upset.

No question about morality or what is right: just appease those who might make trouble.

My query though was regarding your point that we would not take any action against Turkey as the US wouldn't like it. I merely pointed out that the US didn't like us voting against Israel and we did anyway. What was different?

The only thing different is that a large number of countries, whom I gather you wish Australia to join, only criticise two nations: the US and Israel. It has nothing to do with ethics, morality, justice or even goodwill.

IEH:

16 Apr 2014 9:23:48am

Of all people in Australian politics,I would have thought that Bob Carr is the best qualified to speak with some authority on the power & influence of the "Israel Lobby", both State & Federal.Bob Carr as Premier, experienced first hand the influence of the "Lobby", when they tried to prevent the presentation of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi.To his credit he resisted.No doubt this experience prepared him for what to expect in the Federal arena.It does little to enhance the credibility of Tatz, to stray away from the topic of the "Israel Lobby"& to deal with the issues around Turkey & Sri Lanka,as appalling as they are.

aGuy:

16 Apr 2014 7:11:29pm

The racism against Israel is staggering. We ignore countries that terrorize their own citizens, we still have universities that are perfectly happy to have ties with Russia (Crimea), China (Tibet) and more yet there are moves to stop Israel.

The same groups are perfectly happy to be working with countries that mutilate female genitals, ban female drivers and have no female politicians yet Israel is the only body that has been condemned by the UN for breaching women's rights.

If they where so powerful, why so ineffective? Bob Carr has shown his own racism.

rockpicker:

16 Apr 2014 9:41:50am

None will call Turkey to account for reasons related to NATO and in our case Gallipoli. Wrong, but true. Your point about the Sri Lankan issue is different. I think this one is related to who is in power. Even world cricket was sucked in by them and changed its rules. The point about the Jewish lobby was dead right. If any country than Israel carried on like it does there would be sanctions left and right. We have confused the holocaust suffering with the right to do as you like forever. And it doesn't hurt us, the Palestinians have paid the price many times over, for the entirely justified guilt of the west. Criticise Israel for its refusal to abide by the laws that made it, for being a theocracy or for persecuting its Arab citizens or stealing land and a storm of vitriol arises. You are anti Semitic, a holocaust denier, pro terrorist and a bigot. I am none of those, but I reckon Israel is the greatest impediment to middle east peace, because we cannot be honest brokers while we give that nation unqualified support for whatever infamy it engages in.

artofthefirstpeople:

Amanda Bresnan:

16 Apr 2014 9:45:25am

The issue is countries lobbying to hide atrocities and human rights abuses in their country and governments, like the Australian Government, being pressured by this lobbying and not acknowledging what is or has happened. The denial of what has happened to the Tamil people in Sri Lanka by the Australian Government is a case in point. Despite the British and Canadian Governments recognising what has happened there, Australian Governments under both Labor and Coalition have bowed to pressure, because we don't want to accept refugees from Sri Lanka - admitting there is a problem in Sri Lanka means we have to therefore admit there are refugees. Bob Carr as foreign minister stated in a radio interview that there were no human rights issues in Sri Lanka and that it was just a loud diaspora causing the problems. This is in stark contrast to a recent visit by the British PM to CHOGM. When I was an MLA in the ACT Legislative Assembly I spoke about human rights abuses against the Tamils and was immediately called by the Sri Lankan High Commission to set me straight about the truth. As is noted in this article, nobody denies that there have been acts committed by both sides in Sri Lanka, but denying the systematic abuses against the Tamil people is abhorrent.

Daniel:

16 Apr 2014 9:55:31am

Mr Tatz, your argument is a classic Neo-Con strategy. It points at obvious examples of human rights abuses and anti-democratic behavior in order to distract from discussion of more concealed and difficult examples that eat away at the interests of real peace.

Comrade:

16 Apr 2014 10:04:42am

I don't think Mr Tatz has made his coach.

He provides the alternative reason for not criticising the Turkish government - ANZAC Day and our obsession with ANZAC. No Turkish lobby needed. (In any case, for the government to not criticise a century old action is not the equivalent of not criticising the ongoing occupation of the territories).

Our governments desire to enlist Sri Lanka in its "war" against Asylum seekers is the reason for its cozziness with that government. If we turned around and admitted that Sri Lanka committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, then we would have to accept that the asylum seekers from Sri Lanka may be something other than economic migrants. Can't have that, can we.

In other word, present politics explains the alternatives - no lobby group required. Unlike Israel.

Gordon:

16 Apr 2014 10:08:34am

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sri Lanka and Turkey are both dealing with Islamic insurgencies, so rather like the Shah of Persia and other examples from the cold war era, their excesses are overlooked. Turkey has been seen as the last best hope for a "sensible" (i.e. westernised) Muslim nation in the ME.

The west should definitely help emerging democracies, but not emerging dictatorships that use the right buzzwords. I wish I knew a magic formula for determining which is which in advance. It is easy to moralise from a safe distance.

None of this detracts from the basic truths in Tatz's article about the capture, under Carr's time and others, of NSW ALP branches & Govt processes by branch-stacking influence-peddlers, none of whom seem to be Israelis.

cmhsailing:

16 Apr 2014 5:27:46pm

Sri Lanka was & is not facing an Islamic insurgency.The LTTE were not Islamic, if anything they were anti-Islamic.Their support base was Tamil & largely Hindu. In Sri Lanka terms, anybody of Islamic faith is considered a Musselman, not a Tamil.I lived & worked in Sri Lanka from 1993 to 1995.

GraemeF:

16 Apr 2014 10:22:47am

Please direct me to this alternative media that gives more positive weight to Sri Lanka and Turkey and show me the government policy and announcements that prove it is working. Cherry picking for one article shows that cherry picking is a useful tool.

Just as an exercise, try to get a letter or comment printed in the media referring to 'the occupied territories' if referring to the West Bank.

This accurate term has completely disappeared from all reports. I do hope that 'my ABC' is not into that sort of censorship.

(Another) Terry:

16 Apr 2014 10:23:29am

Simon makes a fair point about Sri Lanka. I'm angry that our government isn't pushing for their leaders to be held to account for breaches of international law. But then I'm also angry about the actions of our government that would make such a position open to accusations of hypocrisy, given our treatment of asylum seekers.But equating Turkey's historical treatment of Armenians with Israel's current occupation of Palestinian land? Has anyone noticed that the Armenian genocide happened 100 years ago? While it would be good for Turkish leaders to acknowledge Turkey's shameful history, Japan isn't particularly good at teaching their history of Japanese atrocities in WWII, and earlier in China and Korea. And of course, there's the conservatives wanting to avoid the 'black armband' view of our own shameful colonial history, and the disadvantage Indigenous Australians still endure.So do we ignore every other country's fault because we're not perfect? Bob Carr makes some perfectly reasonable comments about our foreign policy regarding Israel. And calling BDS anti-semitic, as one commenter has said, is just plain silly. Some Jews oppose the occupation of Palestinian land, and support action to force Israel to obey international law.

Peter of Melbourne:

16 Apr 2014 10:56:33am

"Simon makes a fair point about Sri Lanka. I'm angry that our government isn't pushing for their leaders to be held to account for breaches of international law"

According the Norwegians who were in place to monitor the peace process the failure of it was entirely the fault of the Tamils. In the end the Sri Lankan Government made the decision to retake control of their country from a minority group who had started a civil war using terrorism as its prime weapon.

I would take the word of the monitoring force over a self interested Labor hack any day of the week who believes their family name has been impugned.

p.a.travers:

16 Apr 2014 11:10:14am

If Carr is criticised like this by a son of a Professor,and the father was an expert on genocide,a relatively new word in English,surely it is then easy to ask"What are the origins of the name Simon Tatz?And .Is it more necessary in Australia to not prove one has a non-self interest in particular matters of history,or the transverse of that!?"After all some aspects of my name are,and could be entirely Jewish.Like Carr's.Simply attending University and generations of,does not necessarily mean a bias that is entirely honest trustworthy and dependable to stop wars created by a desire,that may or not be entirely conscious!At least,Bob Carr has been a entirely public figure,where the nonsense of Professor before one's name,does not necessarily come about as a matter of continuous undoubted academic,within university work,and whatever are the basics of matters already recorded,verifiable,and unchallenged.Sorry Bob! For criticism that relate to other matters!You simply don't need to be seen by this"You are mad if you dont".

Rinaldo:

16 Apr 2014 11:18:55am

Labor has had a strange relationship with the Turks

My former Labor representative Laurie Ferguson always was pro-Turkish -given his previous electorate encompassed Auburn. He was one of very few Labor MPs to visit "Northern Cyprus" - a rouge state recognised only by Turkey.

Altay:

Kesara:

16 Apr 2014 11:27:58am

If Simon Tatz is Jewish, as indeed his father appears to have been, he needs to declare it at the outset. Honesty requires this, the alternative is dishonest and borders on something whose name has slipped my mind.

The statements he makes are almost certainly accurate, but declaring his hand is a necessity.

In the alternative, there is more than a touch of Ad Hominem in his writing.

Racial or ethnic stances are silly and meaningless. They are beliefs and all - all - beliefs are needless appendages in our minds.

Dove:

16 Apr 2014 12:17:44pm

The issue is about the influence that overseas governments can exert onto Australian foriegn policy. Their religion is not the issue. Once can be critical of Israel but not be critical of Jews- after all, Israel is a nation that famously and proudly reminds the world of its Muslim and Christian citizens.

Zing:

16 Apr 2014 2:47:27pm

Kesara thinks that the author's religion is an issue, Dove. And that makes it an issue that must be discussed.

That's the problem with the anti-Israel lobby. I'm sure that moderates who speak against Israel have reasonable grounds for doing so. But they have to share the platform with anti-semites, muslims and terrorist supporters, all of whom have their own reasons for being part of the same lobby.

And try as they might, the moderates in the anti-Israel lobby can't fully disavow themselves from the more extreme subgroups who stand alongside them. Perhaps they need to think a little more about the company they keep. As the saying goes: Lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

Steve_C:

"If Bob Carr wants to honestly discuss how foreign governments influence Australian policy, he should explain whether his denial of the Armenian genocide was the result of the "Turkish lobby"."

Why should he?

Just because an apologist for the Jewish lobby determines he should do so in order to take the heat off of a lobby group with such a long and deeply entrenched history within Australian politics and business that it doesn't want upset by a former beneficiary of 'favors' telling some simple home truths?

So what if Bob went on the record as saying "the ARMENIAN PEOPLE are right to insist..."

Did he say "The AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE are right to insist that the Turkish government acknowledge it's crime against the Armenian people"? NO!!!

As foreign minister he rightly declined from inferring meddling by Australia in an issue that is up to the Turks and Armenians to resolve.

Bob has not been inconsistent in uttering either of these statements. The author is however being totally disingenuous by inferring inconsistency by Mr Carr.

That obfuscation - whether it be deliberate or not, amounts to lobbying on behalf of the one group that contends it has been 'hurt' as a result of Mr Carr's disclosures regarding their activities.

Talk about trying to find even the tiniest figment of invention on which to try to hang an honest person!!!

Maybe that's why I'm seeing this article as a form of "titz for Tatz"!! I thought they were useless on bull anyway...

Peter of Melbourne:

16 Apr 2014 12:05:10pm

Religious spat within the Ottoman Empire, not Modern Turkey, and the Armenian Christians living within the empire 100 years ago. A civil war in Sri Lanka with the Tamils only relying on terrorist tactics to force the rest of the populace into accepting the splitting of their country in two, we wouldnt stand for it here... the vast majority of Aussies dont give a damn and nor should they.

lazarus:

16 Apr 2014 3:45:13pm

Except that the modern state of Turkey wasn't in existence when the massacres occurred. I know they should just just bow down to pressure and accept the blame for it because the Ottomans aren't here to berate anymore.

Pun:

16 Apr 2014 5:54:41pm

But, the plans of the 'Young Turks'to 'Turkify'the Ottoman Empire pre-date the modern Turkish state, just as the nazification of Germany was intrain and given justification long before Hitler took power.

Makes me realise that comparative genocide studies should be basic history studies so that people are made aware of some of the continuing political uses of persecution and the "intent to destroy".

Artful Dodger:

16 Apr 2014 12:13:17pm

Its interesting how we human beings seek to justify one evil (usually ours) by pointing to others. Like the kid who gets sprung throwing a stone at a window goes into denial by claiming "he did it first"The fact that BoB Carr did not mention Turkish or Sri Lankan lobbying does not prove there is NO Israeli lobby.

Of course there is- but what is even more worrying is the Government's refusal to condemn all genocide and other human rights abuses= or be very selective in its condemnations. An evil is evil irrespective of whoever commits it- including ones we partake in-as in Iraq or ones we remain silent on as in Syria and Palestine.I would like Simon to comment on what I see as a deliberate attempt by the West to weaken all of Israel's potential enemies as in Iraq- Libya-Lebanon-Syria-Egypt and Iran.

Sir Peter Leeks:

16 Apr 2014 12:23:07pm

It seems to me that Australia can either concern itself about the distant past as a means of detracting attention from current atrocities, or act against the current atrocities.

For my money the Abbott government should be taking action against Israel and Sri Lanka now as terrorist nations rather than hiding behind the actions of a once enemy about 100 years ago to avoid showing the concern the world expects of a so called modern civilised democratic nation.

Filz:

16 Apr 2014 1:06:09pm

Interesting that Simon Tatz' article comes out one day after Anthony Lowenstein's article in The Guardian, in which Mr Lowenstein laments on the undue influence of the Zionist (not "Jewish") lobby in Australian politics, as referenced in Bob Carr's recently released book.

Straight away there were calls of "anti-semitic" and from the comments that followed, it was not hard to pick where a great number of authors' sympathies lay.

One thing Mr Lowenstein was attempting to do, was to show that the Zionist lobby is not interested in outcomes for Australia, but rather, for Israel. The lobbyists are persons who are, or claim to be, Australian and who aim to benefit a foreign government at our expense, whether it be materially in dollars, in aid, or in moral support. The Jewish population of Australia is small compared to our total population - therefore the number of "available" Zionists is obviously smaller, as not every Jew is a Zionist.

According to "Jewish World Population" (2001) there were some 13.3 million Jews worldwide. Of these, about 46% reside in the USA/Canada and about 37% in Israel. The remainder are spread throughout the world, including Australia. In terms of percentage of Jewish persons to the whole population, we rank somewhere between 12-14th in the world. The number of Zionists amongst the ranks must therefore be a great deal smaller and it is the small number of very effective lobbyists that Mr Lowenstein was referring to.

Simon Tatz may be quite correct in his assessment of the Turkish and Sri Lankan situations viz-a-viz our government, but regrettably, the article reeks of "whataboutery", given his obvious personal feelings on the subject.

Dove:

16 Apr 2014 2:10:29pm

You make some good points but the issue isn't whether or not Israel exerts influence. Of course it does. It has conducted a highly successful campaign over the decades to influence the countries likely to be persuaded to give them aid, in whatever form. This effort takes many guises. Think Jururtha. Or google Jugurtha, perhaps.

The question is whether this is undue influence, whether it perverts policy or damages Australia. Many countries either do, or try to do the same. China was particularly active during Rudd's tenure if you recall. We need to have a debate on what is excessive, what is undue, are policies corrupted and how would we tell and what could we do about it even if we knew. Bob's Boys Own Adventures makes it public knowledge, it's up to the rest of us to evaluate it.

Filz:

Thank you Dove for your response. I have read many of your past posts and while I may not agree with them all, there are some where we share common ground. Perhaps this is one, perhaps not.

I agree that foreign governments "lobby" all the time. We generally call it "diplomacy" although there are of course many different types and levels of lobbying. Business and trade missions come to mind immediately.

Within Australia, we have a huge number of lobbyists, professional or otherwise, who plead their clients' cases with government, trying to get a better deal. There is nothing wrong in this and it is part and parcel of being a democracy. The difficulties arise when the lobbying is accompanied by bribes or other illegal or unethical activities. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is the Zionist lobby's modus operandi, but you can see where the argument is going. Lobbying HAS to be transparent for two reasons, firstly, that the group paying for or doing the lobbying get value for money and secondly, everyone knows what is going on and can counter any untoward activity. In the Zionist case in the USA, AIPAC seems to be the "front man" in lobbying their politicians. This brings me to what Anthony Lowenstein referred to in his article in The Guardian yesterday. The "Israel" lobby in the US has far more clout than many other organisations with which it competes. The same may be true here, but I have no actual way of knowing. It's all perception.

The fact that some 46% of the worlds Jews (not Zionists!) live in the USA/Canada may have some bearing on their ability to pressure the US Congress. Consider that the USA grants about $3 billion dollars of aid annually to Israel, plus Israel buys most, if not all of its arms from the USA. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It continues to act in defiance of UN resolutions regarding settlements. Can the US government claim in all honesty that they are helping Israel because it's a bulwark against Islam or the Arab nations generally? Without AIPAC and the relatively large Jewish population in the USA, I don't believe it can.

Pun:

16 Apr 2014 1:19:16pm

Simon Tatz, for some years I have been aware of Colin Tatz's work in comparative genocide studies, have many of his books and consider him a treasure.

What strikes me about the allegations of there being a "jewish" lobby, is that they seem to ignore completely the irony involved in ignoring the influence, or atttempted influence, of groups in Australia which take their philosophies and agendas and support from right-wing extremist groups such as those listed by the Southern Poverty Law center in the USA. Even the language of such groups is similar. Why not question the influence and attempted influence of these lobby groups?

There is something disturbing about the use of the phrase "jewish lobby", since this phrase does not make distinctions between Australians of jewish descent, nor distinguish between differentence of opinion amongst this group of Australians, on the issue of Israeli politics, or Palestinian policy or politics, but uses a phrase which lumps a whole group of people together.

Since the issue of Palestine was the context in which the very existence of a "jewish"lobby group was alleged , then a distinction should have been between points of view, or political positions, on the issue of Palestine, not an allegation that the point of view was shaped by, or founded in, racial or ethnic background.

Aunty Social:

16 Apr 2014 1:42:42pm

The very title of this piece demonstarates precisely Carr's point. I'm no Bob Carr fan. I'm more in the "tosser" camp. Now that that's out of the way I agree with Carr fully on the right wing, siege mentality, 100% with us or 100% against us attitude of Melbourne's Jewish lobby.

Any mention of concern - or if one dares - criticism of political polices of the state of Israel is met with the immediate response of one being branded as anti-semitic. It's a long standing tactic that quite frankly is blatantly transparent and well past its used by date.

If friends can't discuss differences of opinion amicably with mutual self respect then perhaps they're not as good friends as one believes them to be.

Pun:

16 Apr 2014 2:03:32pm

Aunty social, you've just proved the point that to use the phrase "Israel Lobby" is offensive precisely because it does not make those distinctions you claim to be defending, such as differences of opinion on political issues and policy.

Aunty Social:

17 Apr 2014 7:02:06am

And I fully support your right to be offended as much as your blood pressure can sustain. I will not however accept that your stated offence gives you the right to shut down discussion on the Israel lobby, and its reactions to any criticism of Israeli political policies.

The Israel Lobby by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government was met with howls of protest from those finding it offensive. The outraged didn't seek to debate the authors points with reasoned logic. Far easier to decry them as anti-Israel, or what I find offensive, deeming them anti-semitic because they dared to question the actions of some influential people to influence US foreign policy towards the state of Israel, and thus the broader Middle East.

Zing:

Israel's policies are frequently criticised by anti-semites, terrorist supporters, Islamic militant groups and nations who oppose the western world. And these groups are open about their affiliations.

If you voice similar opinions, people are going to wonder whether you're connected with one or more of those groups. And it's quite fair to ask whether you are.

If you feel personally offended by being compared to anti-semites or terrorist supporters, then you shouldn't be voicing opinions which are comparable to theirs. Besides, they've got no trouble being associated with you. Why not you them?

GrumpiSkeptic:

16 Apr 2014 3:53:39pm

Zing,

What a stupid comment you made. So you truly believe that "You are either with us, or against us" is the universal truth?

If your catch-all "net" is valid, then I am an anti-semite, but I am not. I see Jewish people as productive people who contributed vastly to the world, so are other non-Jewish people. However, I do hold a contrary view to the people who can only see one side of the argument in anything to do with Israel. Most time they are in the favour of Israel.

Whether it is because Israel can do no wrongs in the Palestinian/Israel conflicts, or perhaps Bob Carr is right about the Jewsih lobby's effectiveness in push its cases.

christoph:

Aunty Social:

cristoph,My point is that all too often discussion of Israel's political policies is met with the strategy of conflating politics with religion with the express purpose to shut said discussion down.

My point is that people of the same religion can have diametrically opposed political points of view, and should be able to discuss them without religion coming into it. The Knesset is fair example wouldn't you say?

Aunty Social:

17 Apr 2014 7:24:57am

Actually, The Knesset's probably not that good an example. I just remembered that only a month or so ago members of some of the religious parties of that chamber walked out prior to UK PM David Cameron giving a speech to it.

Cameron gave a rousing speech standing next to Benjamin Netanyahu defending Israel's right to defend itself, and stating his unwavering opposition to any type of sanctions against Israel.

Cameron had previously made very similar logical comment to Carr in that building settlements on Palestinian land wasn't helpful to the agreed peace process. Hence the walkout. As with the Melbourne Jewish lobby, either 100% with us, or 100% against us.

oztraveller01:

16 Apr 2014 2:12:55pm

I would recommend A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power as required reading.

The article itself is reflective of the apparent fact that genocide is actually OK, depending on who it affects and who stands to benefit by permitting it to occur. It occurs to me that in respect of the Zionist/Jewish/Israeli lobbies, the principal disservice that they have done to the cause of combating genocide is this preoccupation with "the Holocaust".

It is unfortunately but one example of genocide that occurred in the previous century. It is no less horrible for that, but it masks so many others that are seemingly ranked as lesser atrocities.

What fascinates me is that the relentless pressure, exercised by very clever use of power arrangements largely through the USA, have managed to hold Germany accountable as a nation for this one act of genocide for generations.

Perhaps the pressure on Germany over "the Holocaust" is actually the answer. If one reflects upon the other genocides of our times, it's been a case of "Oh well, that was a pity. Step 1 - Express outrage. Step 2 - If expedient, take action. If not - watch from sidelines and hope it is not catching. Step 3 - Time to move on."

The avoidance of responsibility for an atrocity is the real concern. If you can deny or ignore such a thing, you are a really dangerous person, or group of persons.

This alone should cause us to be horrified at our lack of humanity, and be very wary of the proponents of such denials. Remember, these types people will kill you and then deny it.

Zing:

16 Apr 2014 3:35:22pm

Actually, you'll find that while Germany was punished, the Germans themselves were not.

The German leadership pushed the genocide. The German military implemented the genocide and the German population sanctioned it. But the allies had a simple problem. If they wanted to punish everyone who contributed to the holocaust, they'd have to hang most of Germany.

So it was easier to absolve the Germans of guilt. People had spent the last four years thinking of the Nazis as insane dictators. It was simple enough to pretend that the Germans were victims of their own leadership.

In truth, I'd estimate that 99% of the people who committed the holocaust were regular German soldiers and citizens. And after the war ended they went back to their normal lives, pretended it never happened and died as "innocent men". This has been the case for most genocides.

Filz:

16 Apr 2014 6:23:44pm

"....while Germany was punished, the Germans themselves were not."

Sorry Zing, but I don't agree. (I'll state here that my father was Polish. He had no love for Germans or Germany and he could "thank" them for killing 30% of Poland's population - the highest percentage loss of any population during the war).

Agreed that Germany started WW2. Six years later, Germany lay in ruins, many if its people were starving and the country almost adopted the "chocolate standard" as money and jobs were so scarce. What happened to the German population was the result of placing your trust in a politician who could not be removed from office, unless by assassination.

The ordinary German soldier was just that. Certainly, there may have been atrocities, but they were few and far between compared with the extravagancies of the SS. During war, the first casualty may be truth, but the second is always a civilian.

Zing:

I recognise that not every german was a criminal and at worst, many germans were only guilty of complicity.

But at the same time, it was impossible for a handful of Nazi politicians to murder 17 million people without the german society contributing to the process.

Countless soldiers, police, workers and civilians all contributed to the process in various ways. And the majority were never brought to justice for their actions. Their escape from justice is an irremovable mark on the nation's soul.

Eric the Echidna:

Filz:

17 Apr 2014 7:41:10am

Zing - I don't totally disagree with you. There were atrocities on all sides. Can you explain what the 17 million figure represents though? It can't be total civilian/military deaths, it's only about half of the number of Soviets that Stalin had killed off in the purges and Russia then lost 20 million during WW2. We have the holocaust figure of 6 million....

lilly:

16 Apr 2014 2:41:56pm

What people need to remember is that, in the domain of foreign affairs, human rights and democracy are simply a bargaining chip. In truth countries (including Australia) only worry about human rights if there are no other considerations to be had in the relationship or if it can be used to enhance our position in negotiations. Issues such as trade and defence are of far greater importance.

NB: I expect Bob Carr is hoping that this book sells well to make up for the damage its done to his reputation. Nobody seems to have a pleasant word to say about it (or him).

Altay:

16 Apr 2014 3:45:28pm

Mr Simon Tatz,

You are entitled to express your opinion. It's fantastic to have a free and democratic society such as ours in which everyone can exercise his or her right to freedom of expression. Needless to say other people have the right to express their counterclaims (opinions) against your proposition in the article or that of politicians with similar view. But a counterclaim is hardly necessary here. Unfortunately for you, all your claims in the article are based on just one very important sentence: [That the genocide took place is a historically irrefutable fact]. The key words here are "genocide" and "irrefutable fact". You are implying (accusing) in your article that Turks are "guilty of committing a crime- (so-called) genocide". As you know when you accuse someone of wrong doing and take him to court, the judge decides what a fact is according to the evidence presented. Of all the nations on this planet, The Republic of Turkey is the first one who has been insisting for many years to have this issue to be settled once and for all in front of a panel of international judges similar to that of ICC, but so far neither Armenia nor their supporters are willing to go there, funny that!

Zing:

16 Apr 2014 5:27:38pm

In the majority of Australian court proceedings, there is no jury. And in these situations the judge decides both questions of fact and law.

All of which is moot anyway, since there is no jury in an ICJ trial. You should keep in mind that the jury trial is a product of British and American law. Many countries in the world use different systems.

foundthetruth:

16 Apr 2014 4:00:19pm

All of us, but particularly all our politicians should remember at all times that God's promise stands forever: He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse it. Israel's Islamic neighbours in the Middle East are finding that out the hard way.

bluedog:

Colin Matthews:

16 Apr 2014 5:04:53pm

"Who now remembers the Armenians?".. quoth Adolph Hitler. The Turkish government is unnaturally sensitive about this subject, given the people involved are all now dead. All countries have lobby groups, but it seems some lobby groups are more equal than others.

Bristlecat:

16 Apr 2014 5:59:28pm

Pretty average article, I mean what do you expect the Australian War memorial to show about Turkish massacres for heavens sake. Did you miss the name of the institution in your rush to perpetuate a long gone peice of history on the other side of the world???As for the LTTE the Sri Lankans did a great job in defeating one of the most brutal terrorist organisations of modern times. They deserve our help in transitioning through a difficult period. The tamil diaspora is very well funded and just won't give up, personally being associated with them is like sleeping with a dog with fleas.

Dekoder:

16 Apr 2014 9:00:31pm

Forget the atrocities of the past, Turkey is still occupying 39% of Cyprus, no one did anything about that and still don't. The things they did there were horrific, I lived through it as a child. But then they have the US's backing. They where and always will be barbaric, and we as the west support them.

Sue B:

Bewildered:

16 Apr 2014 10:43:21pm

Why the current Australian Government is supporting the Sri Lankan Government is because they want the Sri Lankan Government's support to stop the illegal boats from Sri Lanka heading towards Australia. To suggest it is because of the Sri Lankan Government has strongly lobbied the Australian Government is laughable. If there are no illegal boats originating from Sri Lanka, I would never imagine for a moment that the Australian Government would seemingly go out of their way to back the Sri lankans.

Alpo:

17 Apr 2014 8:07:57am

Never ever forget: Seeking asylum is NOT illegal!... in the same way as it is not illegal to knock at your door asking to use your telephone. In both cases you may either deny or accept the request after you have duly considered the situation.

Altay:

17 Apr 2014 8:03:01am

Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. Nevertheless, as I said before, you are entitled to have your own opinion.

There's an old phrase among critical thinkers: [you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts]. The idea is that these are two different things: opinions are matters of taste or subjective conclusions, while FACTS stand outside that, independent of what you think or how you may be biased.

There are two commonly accepted constraints on truth and falsehood:1)Every proposition is true or false. [Law of the Excluded Middle].2)No proposition is both true and false. [Law of Non-contradiction]. These constraints require that every proposition has exactly one truth-value.

Now, the proposition in this article is this: Armenian GENOCIDE took place and it is historically irrefutable FACT.

The question is this: Is this proposition true or false?

Genocide is a crime against humanity; as a result, has there been an accused party who was charged for crimes against humanity by an international court of Justice? The answer is NO. Has there been a criminal trial that took place in an international court of Justice? The answer is NO.

Only a court may judicially notice a FACT that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Hence, the proposition [That the genocide took place is a historically irrefutable fact ] is FALSE.

Therefore this statement is nothing more than an opinion, which is also false and biased.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.

It's a fundamental human yearning to be a part of something bigger than one's self, and maybe that's what drove my mate Ash to die, far from home, in a bloody foreign war against Islamic State, writes C August Elliott.